Saudi Arabia and Iran war talk!

Chrongen · 12-12-2017 7:54pm

jackboy wrote: »

Not sure. The US would probably back upthe Saudis.

Like they backed up ISIS in Syria who subsequently got massacred?

Chrongen · 12-12-2017 8:06pm

Doltanian wrote: »

If Iran and Saudi Arabia go to War then the pendulum of momentum will be firmly with Iran. Iran has 80 million people, Saudi has 30 million but around 12 million of those are modern day slaves and other foreigners in the country, once war breaks out there will be a mass exodus back to India and the Philippines etc.

The Saudis are generally inept and have no war experience, their population is largely obese and lazy with a culture of wealth and slavery. The Iranians are totally different and the Iranians have the numbers, also don't forget Russia will back Iran 100% in the war as it is no secret that Russia hates the Saudis. Iran is a nuclear state and could also draw support from North Korea. I do think if Saudi Arabia provokes Iran then it will start off a third world war.

War will come but in what form and the last few years remind me of the lead up towards the second world war. Israel should keep its nose within its borders in any conflict because a Nuclear exchange could happen very easily.

What you say is mostly true. Iran is not a nuclear state however...but that doesn't matter.
Saudi Arabia are so weak and so worried that they have actually flown a delegation to Moscow to seek Russian help. They know that American influence and protection in the region is a thing of the past.

even Israel are cosying up to Russia because they know how much of a paper tiger Washington has become in 15 short years.

Nobody listens to the Americans anymore. They are a spent force. Their dream of using a bogus terror "war" to surround Russia, China and the Caspian Basin via North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, and now trying to tell the world that Sweden is in need of becoming part of the NATO/US effort is in a shambles.

jackboy · 12-12-2017 8:16pm

Chrongen wrote: »

Nobody listens to the Americans anymore. They are a spent force. Their dream of using a bogus terror "war" to surround Russia, China and the Caspian Basin via North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, and now trying to tell the world that Sweden is in need of becoming part of the NATO/US effort is in a shambles.

They are still the most powerful country and military in the world.

Chrongen · 12-12-2017 8:16pm

Gatling wrote: »

It won't come down to population size , remember Iran has been surpressing it's own population for decades ,
Don't see how NK comes into it at considering they are totally safely locked up inside of their own borders ,
Saudi has its own big backers to and Iran won't be able to effectively fight against land sea and air attacks from nearly every direction ,
And they have to shift massive amount of men a and equipment either through Iraq which won't happen or by sea leaving them wide open to been hammered before getting off any ships

Why would they need to move equipment anywhere outside of Iran?

Your grasp of geopolitics is a little outdated. This isn't about Stuka dive bombers and half-tracks.

Chrongen · 12-12-2017 8:23pm

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

And Russia would back Iran.

Neither would get involved directly.

Iranians have way, way more experience than the Saudi's who are a bunch of pampered pussies that prefer to hire mercs to do their dirty work.

That's why the Houthi rebels backed by Iran in Yemen are sticking it to them. For all their expensive war toys from Uncle Sam they can't defeat them.

If it is Saudi's attacking Iranians on their own soil they haven't a chance, The Iranians sent wave after wave of men to their deaths in the Iran Iraq war. They are as hard as **** and fiercely patriotic, even if they hate the regime.

Throw Hezbollah into the mix and the Saudi's are goosed. They haven't got the stomach for a fight like the Iranians do.

Not only that but all who fought for 5 years to victory in Syria....The Syrian Army, the Iranian Guard and Hezbollah are now probably the most battle-hardened men in the world.

A pampered Saudi clown or an israeli conscript who just wants to go drinking in Goa wouldn't last farting time against them.

Ipso · 12-12-2017 8:25pm

Ooh tell us more.

Chrongen · 12-12-2017 8:50pm

jackboy wrote: »

They are still the most powerful country and military in the world.

Are they? What can they do except talk, build useless weaponry and kill civilians? And in the process fail in their endeavours at occupying countries for material gain?

You'll never convince me that a 6 foot 6 loudmouthed bully pumped full of steroids is more powerful and righteous than a fearless, skinny 5' 4" guy who can fight without needing to beat his chest.

I understand that America's phoney wars are to make money and prevent anyone from carving their own path away from the Washington Consensus. I understand that the fools who signed up and got their legs blown off in Helmand Province thought they were defending something when all they were doing was being pawns for Grumman and Raytheon. I understand that. But the guys who are fighting AGAINST the shareholders are slowly winning.

Even Europe knows that America are a complete bullsh1t force. Germany are yearning to get free of the crappy US trade deals and get the Beijing to Berlin Railway moving.

They want the dumb sanctions on Russia lifted. They want to trade along the OBOR initiative.

America is run by clowns who can't even stop 30,000 kids a week falling into poverty. The rest of the world knows this.

jackboy · 12-12-2017 9:22pm

Chrongen wrote: »

You'll never convince me that a 6 foot 6 loudmouthed bully pumped full of steroids is more powerful and righteous than a fearless, skinny 5' 4" guy who can fight without needing to beat his chest.

Technology wins wars not soldiers. Struggling against insurgencies does not mean that they are weak. They could have crushed the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan very quickly if they had used 10% if their military power.

mulbot · 12-12-2017 9:58pm

jackboy wrote: »

Technology wins wars not soldiers. Struggling against insurgencies does not mean that they are weak. They could have crushed the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan very quickly if they had used 10% if their military power.

Why didn't they use it when they were struggling then?

the purple tin · 12-12-2017 10:25pm

jackboy wrote: »

They are still the most powerful country and military in the world.

They are stretching themselves very thin though, lots of troops across Africa and SE Asia at the minute for instance.
America will also be very wary of getting drawn into another 'boots on the ground' invasion and occupation scenario after Iraq and Afghanistan.
Plusconsider the amount the US spend on their military, almost 600 billion in 2015 and rising. Crazy money, they can't maintain that level of spending forever.
For all the tough military talk chances are the biggest global conflict in the future will be economic and not a traditional war.

RDM_83 again · 12-12-2017 10:31pm

Its like choosing a side in the May Weather McGregor fight, ones a mouthy prick the other is a wife beater, same here Iran talks war a lot and the Saudi's are bastards

Anyway

If they have open conflict rather than the proxy war in Yemen people seem to be forgetting there is a country called Iraq in the way, now Iraq might lean towards Iran at the minute and have had Iranian sourced forces in the fight against ISIS but they still lean heavily on the USA in such I don't think Iran can use the tactics Russia used in the East of Ukraine , there is alternatively a path through Kuwait I think Iran knows what happened to the last regime to invade Kuwait.
Iran AFAIK doesn't have the capacity for large scale amphibious troop movements.

So it would be a heated up proxy war, and an air war. Iran's airforce is mainly left over American planes from the Shahs' regime, Saudi particularly with Israeli support would wipe the floor of it, and Israeli planes have been shown to be quiet good at penetrating russian built air defences. This means that the Saudi's could bomb high profile Iranian targets quite effectively, whats to say that this couldn't trigger regime change there if the perception is the state talked the country into a war it didn't need.

Iran has been strengthening its influence very effectively and without huge cost for a number of years, a war like this is exactly what it doesn't need.

Whats interesting is the way this sort of stuff is viewed by some in the west, like I would tend to be slightly more sympathetic to Irans case but the fact the harder left seem to be quiet enamored to the state as seen on this thread is just baffling, like this is a country that purged their communists, leftists and atheists in a manner probably more brutally than the South American regimes that the same people despise!
Its really bizarre and sometime feels like its because its simple binary thinking where- well they say they are socialist and they hate Israeli, that cancels out all the other stuff, and the Islamic authoritarianism and moral police well that gets a pass because of "reasons"

edit: actually do Iran and Kuwait share a border-off to google

Ballstein · 12-12-2017 10:32pm

Chrongen wrote: »

Are they? What can they do except talk, build useless weaponry and kill civilians? And in the process fail in their endeavours at occupying countries for material gain?

You'll never convince me that a 6 foot 6 loudmouthed bully pumped full of steroids is more powerful and righteous than a fearless, skinny 5' 4" guy who can fight without needing to beat his chest.

I understand that America's phoney wars are to make money and prevent anyone from carving their own path away from the Washington Consensus. I understand that the fools who signed up and got their legs blown off in Helmand Province thought they were defending something when all they were doing was being pawns for Grumman and Raytheon. I understand that. But the guys who are fighting AGAINST the shareholders are slowly winning.

Even Europe knows that America are a complete bullsh1t force. Germany are yearning to get free of the crappy US trade deals and get the Beijing to Berlin Railway moving.

They want the dumb sanctions on Russia lifted. They want to trade along the OBOR initiative.

America is run by clowns who can't even stop 30,000 kids a week falling into poverty. The rest of the world knows this.

While you may never be convinced of his "righteousness", the skinny 5'4" weed will have that reassuring thought as the last thing he ever thinks when the 6'6" bully breaks his back and beats him to death.

You do know after nearly 16 years of continuous war, the US has over 2 million battle hardened combat veterans. A single carrier battle group is more powerful than 99% of the individual countries in the worlds Air Forces and Navy's, the US has ten of them. Their Air Force is light years ahead of anything else in the world. The average American infantryman is as good as any in history and a far sight better than some half starved conscript from the Ural's.
Anyone with a ounce of military knowledge knows that there is no country in the world who could go toe to toe with the US in a conventional war and have a chance. The USA is far from perfect, but even under the presidency of that orange ape, it's a million times better than Russia and Putin.

jackboy · 12-12-2017 10:32pm

mulbot wrote: »

Why didn't they use it when they were struggling then?

Political reasons.

Ipso · 12-12-2017 10:40pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Its like choosing a side in the May Weather McGregor fight, ones a mouthy prick the other is a wife beater, same here Iran talks war a lot and the Saudi's are bastards

Anyway

If they have open conflict rather than the proxy war in Yemen people seem to be forgetting there is a country called Iraq in the way, now Iraq might lean towards Iran at the minute and have had Iranian sourced forces in the fight against ISIS but they still lean heavily on the USA in such I don't think Iran can use the tactics Russia used in the East of Ukraine , there is alternatively a path through Kuwait I think Iran knows what happened to the last regime to invade Kuwait.
Iran AFAIK doesn't have the capacity for large scale amphibious troop movements.

So it would be a heated up proxy war, and an air war. Iran's airforce is mainly left over American planes from the Shahs' regime, Saudi particularly with Israeli support would wipe the floor of it, and Israeli planes have been shown to be quiet good at penetrating russian built air defences. This means that the Saudi's could bomb high profile Iranian targets quite effectively, whats to say that this couldn't trigger regime change there if the perception is the state talked the country into a war it didn't need.

Iran has been strengthening its influence very effectively and without huge cost for a number of years, a war like this is exactly what it doesn't need.

Whats interesting is the way this sort of stuff is viewed by some in the west, like I would tend to be slightly more sympathetic to Irans case but the fact the harder left seem to be quiet enamored to the state as seen on this thread is just baffling, like this is a country that purged their communists, leftists and atheists in a manner probably more brutally than the South American regimes that the same people despise!
Its really bizarre and sometime feels like its because its simple binary thinking where- well they say they are socialist and they hate Israeli, that cancels out all the other stuff, and the Islamic authoritarianism and moral police well that gets a pass because of "reasons"

edit: actually do Iran and Kuwait share a border-off to google

It would make a great study in cognitive dissonance.

RDM_83 again · 12-12-2017 10:55pm

Ipso wrote: »

It would make a great study in cognitive dissonance.

Yeah I can understand it for the 70's and early 80's to an extent but it's not like the fact they hung tens of thousands of leftists a dozen at a time in the late 80's isn't exactly hidden particularly from anybody with in a interest in human rights or left wing international politics who are the people that generally make these statements are.

As I said though I do think the west bet on the wrong horse in setting itself against Iran in that I don't think they are very into the global jihad idea

archer22 · 12-12-2017 11:24pm

Ballstein wrote: »

While you may never be convinced of his "righteousness", the skinny 5'4" weed will have that reassuring thought as the last thing he ever thinks when the 6'6" bully breaks his back and beats him to death.

You do know after nearly 16 years of continuous war, the US has over 2 million battle hardened combat veterans.and A single carrier battle group is more powerful than 99% of the individual countries in the worlds Air Forces Navy's, the US has ten of them. Their Air Force is light years ahead of anything else in the world. The average American infantryman is as good as any in history and a far sight better than some half starved conscript from the Ural's.
Anyone with a ounce of military knowledge knows that there is no country in the world who could go toe to toe with the US in a conventional war and have a chance. The USA is far from perfect, but even under the presidency of that orange ape, it's a million times better than Russia and Putin.

Are they more powerful than volleys of DF-21Ds, Zircons, and all the new generation of hyper sonic ASMs....not to mention Sunburn etc.

And yeah I know America and it's allies "can shoot down everything with magic missiles" etc blah blah ...but in real life Israel's state of the art corvette couldn't stop an old Chinese Silkworm missile fired by Hezbollah in the 2006 war :rolleyes:

Ballstein · 13-12-2017 12:25am

archer22 wrote: »

Are they more powerful than volleys of DF-21Ds, Zircons, and all the new generation of hyper sonic ASMs....not to mention Sunburn etc.

And yeah I know America and it's allies "can shoot down everything with magic missiles" etc blah blah ...but in real life Israel's state of the art corvette couldn't stop an old Chinese Silkworm missile fired by Hezbollah in the 2006 war :rolleyes:

Yes, yes they are. If carriers are so ineffective why are China, the UK and other countries still building them. Even Russia has an old rust bucket of a floating sh1te pile floating about the oceans.

archer22 · 13-12-2017 12:44am

Ballstein wrote: »

Yes, yes they are. If carriers are so ineffective why are China, the UK and other countries still building them. Even Russia has an old rust bucket of a floating sh1te pile floating about the oceans.

China's first carrier was for it's missile research....ie understanding carriers.

Building a second one is simply for national prestige.

endacl · 13-12-2017 12:47am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The big powers in the region are now beginning to threaten each other.

Electric cars + who cares = let them at it.

Ballstein · 13-12-2017 12:54am

archer22 wrote: »

China's first carrier was for it's missile research....ie understanding carriers.

Building a second one is simply for national prestige.

So they built a carrier to understand a carrier, which according to you are now obsolete because of ASM’s, then decided to build another anyway for national pride despite them being so easy to destroy.
Makes sense.....

archer22 · 13-12-2017 1:09am

Ballstein wrote: »

So they built a carrier to understand a carrier, which according to you are now obsolete because of ASM’s, then decided to build another anyway for national pride despite them being so easy to destroy.
Makes sense.....

If your goal is to be able to destroy carriers...then its good to have one of your own to play around with and see what they can and can't do. (I don't expect America would have loaned them one for research).

Then for sailing around the world on friendly port visits...Its nice to have a big carrier parked up, (impresses the locals)..also for humanitarian missions..very useful.

China is not going overseas to invade other countries...neither do they have any intentions of battling the US in the Pacific battle of Midway style.

Chrongen · 13-12-2017 1:09am

Ballstein wrote: »

While you may never be convinced of his "righteousness", the skinny 5'4" weed will have that reassuring thought as the last thing he ever thinks when the 6'6" bully breaks his back and beats him to death.

You do know after nearly 16 years of continuous war, the US has over 2 million battle hardened combat veterans. A single carrier battle group is more powerful than 99% of the individual countries in the worlds Air Forces and Navy's, the US has ten of them. Their Air Force is light years ahead of anything else in the world. The average American infantryman is as good as any in history and a far sight better than some half starved conscript from the Ural's.
Anyone with a ounce of military knowledge knows that there is no country in the world who could go toe to toe with the US in a conventional war and have a chance. The USA is far from perfect, but even under the presidency of that orange ape, it's a million times better than Russia and Putin.

You can keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.

American soldiers serve one and ONLY one purpose and that is to die for corporations.

What was that quote from Henry Kissinger? Here it is:

“Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”

The ones who fight back are the defenders.

Chrongen · 13-12-2017 1:32am

jackboy wrote: »

Technology wins wars not soldiers. Struggling against insurgencies does not mean that they are weak. They could have crushed the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan very quickly if they had used 10% if their military power.

Then why didn't they?

Did they act for the craic? Did they get defeated and then say "well we could've won" like what you are trying to maintain?

It's like a schoolyard bully picking on a kid, getting his nose and teeth broken and then claiming that he could have won the brawl if he "did better"

I hear the same old argument time and time again. America got destroyed in Vietnam and in Iraq and are continuing to sit in barracks in Afghanistan....against who? Fighters with lasers? Immortals? Men with invisible planes?

No. Against men, women and kids they can't defeat. Oh, they can round up and torture them. Then can incinerate a town or a village, but they will still go home crying and hoping their government will take care of them....a government that won't.

Chrongen · 13-12-2017 1:41am

Ballstein wrote: »

While you may never be convinced of his "righteousness", the skinny 5'4" weed will have that reassuring thought as the last thing he ever thinks when the 6'6" bully breaks his back and beats him to death.

You do know after nearly 16 years of continuous war, the US has over 2 million battle hardened combat veterans. A single carrier battle group is more powerful than 99% of the individual countries in the worlds Air Forces and Navy's, the US has ten of them. Their Air Force is light years ahead of anything else in the world. The average American infantryman is as good as any in history and a far sight better than some half starved conscript from the Ural's.
Anyone with a ounce of military knowledge knows that there is no country in the world who could go toe to toe with the US in a conventional war and have a chance. The USA is far from perfect, but even under the presidency of that orange ape, it's a million times better than Russia and Putin.

2 million?

You DO realise that at the height of the Vietnam FCUKUP there were 500,000 US personnel in the country.

Of that number there were less than 40,000 combat troops. The rest were typists, pizza-makers, janitors, truck drivers to ferry laundry from barracks to bog, etc.

2 million battle-hardened American soldiers. Give it a rest.

22 US vets commit or attempt to commit suicide every single day.
Yeah, this is a fighting force that is driven by defence or country and where morale is high.

Chrongen · 13-12-2017 1:52am

jackboy wrote: »

Political reasons.

What political reasons, exactly?

"Guys we're off to war and we're off to kill a load of people and destroy things until we achieve our objective which right now...we don't have one but we're going to kill and bomb and destroy and a lot of our troops will be killed and maimed and crippled. When we are stopped from doing that by the people we are killing and terrorising and disfiguring and we don't continue to do it until the slaughter stops and because they kicked the **** out of us then it stops....and for political reasons. I want you all to know that when we get hammered in a war for no good reason other than to act like CNUTS, it's because we weren't allowed to win, Dammit. Now you remember that!"

:pac::pac:

Skylinehead · 13-12-2017 1:56am

archer22 wrote: »

If your goal is to be able to destroy carriers...then its good to have one of your own to play around with and see what they can and can't do. (I don't expect America would have loaned them one for research).

Eh not really. Carriers can launch planes. That's about it. They don't defend themselves much, there's other ships for that.

China want a carrier because they're really quite good at power projection. Nothing like a floating airfield for that.

Irish Praetorian · 13-12-2017 2:08am

Chrongen wrote: »

You can keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.

American soldiers serve one and ONLY one purpose and that is to die for corporations.

What was that quote from Henry Kissinger? Here it is:

“Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”

The ones who fight back are the defenders.

Notorious false quote, not only is there no evidence he said anything resembling it, the fact that he served in WW2 kinda rubbishes the notion he would put himself down.

Chrongen · 13-12-2017 2:17am

Skylinehead wrote: »

Eh not really. Carriers can launch planes. That's about it. They don't defend themselves much, there's other ships for that.

China want a carrier because they're really quite good at power projection. Nothing like a floating airfield for that.

An aircraft carrier is now a useless, overpriced, ineffective piece of junk. The only reason the US maintains them is because they look cool and are a propaganda tool.

An aircraft carrier can be sunk or crippled by a single jet 100's of miles away.

One bomb on the flight deck renders the thing nothing more that a cruiseliner for sailors and bored aviators.

Iran can cut a ship in half with their supersonic Shahab missiles. Likewise China with their Silkwoms and Sunburns. Hezbollah hammered the Israelis with their anti-tank missiles in 2006 BUT they also blew and Israeli frigate to bits from the SHORE. North Korea can pepper the US with Hwasong-15 missiles.

Do you think any of these could plough dozens of armour piercing high explosive missiles into a lumbering US aircraft carrier until the thing was a listing blazing wreck?

Vladimir Poontang · 13-12-2017 2:18am

Chrongen wrote: »

2 million?

You DO realise that at the height of the Vietnam FCUKUP there were 500,000 US personnel in the country.

Of that number there were less than 40,000 combat troops. The rest were typists, pizza-makers, janitors, truck drivers to ferry laundry from barracks to bog, etc.

2 million battle-hardened American soldiers. Give it a rest.

22 US vets commit or attempt to commit suicide every single day.
Yeah, this is a fighting force that is driven by defence or country and where morale is high.

Shhh let him keep posting this stuff, its hilarious.

Chrongen · 13-12-2017 2:28am

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Notorious false quote, not only is there no evidence he said anything resembling it, the fact that he served in WW2 kinda rubbishes the notion he would put himself down.

“I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”

Saudi Arabia and Iran war talk!

Comments